Changes in the CFLPA

Marwan is #1 (VP) and a former Ti-Cat is hired as the association's Executive director:

[url=http://www.tsn.ca/keeping-elected-new-cflpa-president-1.463311]http://www.tsn.ca/keeping-elected-new-c ... t-1.463311[/url]

Lots of TiCat reps, I like it. but lots of pressure on those guys.
Is Keon Raymond the first ever INT on the executive?

FYI - The Salary Cap could be re-opened this season
" if the nine teams’ aggregate revenues (excluding Grey Cup) increase by more than $27 million in any year of the agreement, both sides will renegotiate an increase to the salary cap starting in the 2016 season."

[url=http://www.cfl.ca/2014/06/13/new-five-year-cba-ratified-by-cfl-and-cflpa/]http://www.cfl.ca/2014/06/13/new-five-y ... and-cflpa/[/url]

But they can’t audit the books LOL ! They have to trust what the other side of the table tells them :slight_smile:

The owners can have some stuff paid directly to league office, they can run their merchandise point of sale virtual and brick and mortar as separate companines and on and on…

You would think that their books would have to be offered to the union, much like the NHL must to the NHLPA

I would bet that the CFLPA would need to get a court order to look at everything they need to vet this.

You would lose that bet
It is on page 83 of the CBA, here
see NOTE #1

[url=https://media.cfldb.ca/documents/cfl-cflpa-collective-agreement-2014.pdf]https://media.cfldb.ca/documents/cfl-cf ... t-2014.pdf[/url]

It also states that if the CFLPA and League could not agree on how much the Cap would increase if the revenue exceeded $27M, that the entire CBA could be terminated as of May 31st 2017

Nothing to do with the players getting to audit the books. But it does give them an out, now you think they will use that out ? :wink:

I guess you didn't bother to read
" The CFL and member clubs in the CFL shall allow the CFLPA and an accountant appointed by the CFLPA access to all financial records, with respect to football operations, for inspection, review and audit at any time or times during reasonable business hours and upon reasonable notice to the member club and/or the CFL"

Would they use the out?

It would be the CFLPA's best opportunity. the shoe would be on the other foot so to speak
It would put the league under tremendous pressure from TSN and other sponsors, The teams all have expensive lease agreements with their stadiums and all team executive staff would still be getting paid. Who knows, after the last fustercluck by the CFLPA, they had better be much better prepared and I think they will be next time.

Thanks for the info, let me ask. How useful do you think

access to all financial records, with respect to football operations

would be ? For example let's say the lease for Tim Horton's is in Bob Young's name, all of the sponsorship money for the stadium, concession leases, naming rights and on and on and on would not show up.

I hope the players improve their conditions, I really do. I don't think their problem was union leadership, from what I read and saw while Flory was union boss. Was dysfunction and lack of resolve. Brouillette said exactly that to Herb this week.

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I hope, for the players' sake, and yes, the league's sake that the players have learned....

BTW I enjoyed your intentional misspelling. :thup:

:cowboy:

Going back to the Skalvania and PSC era isn't in the cards but Players should get somewhere between 35 and 45 percent of revenues. Right now they are going backwards whlle teams and front office staff are getting a windfall.

Ahh yes, the "I'm entitled too..." argument. Why do you think this? Have you been brainwashed by your union steward? Do you have a liberal arts degree from a Canadian University? Where does this overused entitlement argument come from otherwise?

Players are "entitled" to what the teams want to pay them. Nothing more, nothing less. If the team/league is making good $$ and a player wants more, that player walks into the GM's office and says "I want a raise." If they don't get it, they are "entitled" to take their labour elsewhere.

Any other system is harmful to the game and product.

And save me the anti-management rhetoric. The owners want to make $$ and part of that is paying for players to stick around. They (owners) know that the players and owners need each other and that they have a mutual interest in keeping pay fair. Only Labour approaches these relationships from a position of conflict. How do you get to fairness when one side (labour) is constantly trying to undermine the other?

Move on to the 21 century. You don't have to think about every employment opportunity as a chance workers to do battle with the Greedy Capitalist Class. The North American world is e very prosperous place.

1899 called. They want their social movement back.

Do you go to games to watch the coaches, training staff, and front office people stand on the sidelines?

I know I don't.

Without the players there would be no ticket sales, no TV contract, nor any reason for anyone to go to a stadium. This is the fallacy in your argument. If management does not share a reasonable amount of their revenues they will be shooting themselves in their collective feet. They will have unhappy employees (players).

Those unhappy employees (players) just tossed Scott Flory out of his position in charge of the CFLPA likely due to how they got taken to the cleaners by the owners during the last contract negotiations. They players collectively want more. Are they "entitled"? I submit they are as they are the "product" the CFL customers are buying.

From a customer service perspective, if you have unhappy employees (players), how happy are your customers going to be?

:cowboy:

So if players should get 35% to 45% of revenue, what percentage of revenue should go to pay for the stadium? Management and administration? Coaching? Trainers and medical staff? Training facilities? Advertising? Travel? Franchise fees? Office facilities? Taxes? (I'm sure there are many other expenses I'm forgetting.)

What do all those percentages add up to? Whatever is left is profit. Assuming there's anything left, of course.

CFiO I did not say they should get 35% to 45% of revenue. I said a reasonable amount of their revenues. What that percentage is I have no way of knowing, not knowing what the league and individual teams' books look like. If I was able to look at those books I would be able to suggest what would be reasonable.

It was HfxTC who said 35% to 45% of revenues, which I included in my quote (and you removed because of the embedded limit quote). But it appeared that you were defending that statement, and I inferred that your "reasonable percentage" referred to that range.

My feelings are that players should be paid a reasonable amount, with consideration given to the physical risks they are taking and the short career length. But that reasonable amount must also take into consideration the other expenses a team has as well as the uncertainty of revenues year over year. I suppose a percentage of revenues is a good place to start, although perhaps a running average of revenues would be better, as it would even out the ups-and-downs that teams experience. But I wouldn't want it tied tightly to revenues.

BillyDee87, you have used quotation marks on " I'm entitled too..."
Nobody has used that phrase, except you in your condescending reply
FYI - There was profit sharing with the League and the CFLPA not that long ago, but the Union gave it up to save the League from bankruptcy, and before you claim it was the CFLPA, it was the owners that ran the League into the ground at that time.

It sounds like Billy Dee is doing his Ralph Sazio impression. After Tony Gabriel and Bob Krouse won the 72 Grey here at home, Sazio let Gabriel walk to Ottawa over $500. It was said by Leo Cahill that Ralph threw nickels around like sewer lids. Ottawa certainly benefitted from our GM's my way or the highway approach.

The owners today realize that the CFL is a co-operative that only survives with the give and take of the management and the players. We are lucky here in Hamilton to have an owner who has a good heart and deep pockets. In the salary cap era, we may lose a Medlock but this fan doesn't feel cheated because my team was being cheap. :smiley:

If you wonder why Krouse was mentioned along with Gabriel, watch the 72 Grey Cup again. Krouse was the MVP, not the soccer player from Burlington, Ian Sunter. It was a nice field goal but it was no "Ozzy!"

Pat Lynch(the really old guy)

As I wrote in the main forum, 35% to 45% of revenues would amount to compensation varying between $9.1 millions and $11.7 millions yearly. All teams would be on deficit and the League would not survive.

Reading some of you-here or main forum- one get the impression that the CFL players are working/playing for peanuts. The average salary is $94,400. Not too bad for 6 months. I wonder how many of us-on this forum or main forum- are making $94,400 for 6 months.

If, in 2019, the Players are too greedy, the Owners will close shop or operate with mostly international players,mainly rookies.

Richard

I cannot believe you think that 6 months is all the players commit to.
There is not one CFL player that only puts in 6 months, it is a 12 month commitment or they will not be in the League very long

Read this, it shows how much players are working at their trade

[url=http://leaderpost.com/sports/football/cfl/cfl-players-working-days-are-much-longer-than-the-cba-stipulates]http://leaderpost.com/sports/football/c ... stipulates[/url]

"Pro sports isn’t about punching a clock. It’s not a 9-to-5 job, nor is it a June-to-November job. Players have to do what it takes to make themselves and their team better 24 hours a day, 12 months a year, or they will get a taste of how difficult it is to get a job that pays $85,000 outside of football".